Incorrect export description alone cannot trigger customs prohibition or confiscation absent understatement of value or statutory export ban.

Incorrect description in export documents did not attract Section 18(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 where the declared export value was not understated and no foreign exchange loss could arise; Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 could not be enlarged beyond that restriction. The goods were also not liable to confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 because they were freely exportable and no valid prohibition existed under the governing fiscal laws. On that reasoning, customs could not detain the goods for export on the basis of the description error, and the export was directed to proceed subject to the incentive scheme conditions.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether mentioning stainless steel rods in the export documents, when the goods were in fact non-stainless steel rods, attracted Section 18(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and the corresponding prohibition under Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962. (ii) Whether the goods were liable to confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and could be detained from export on the basis of the incorrect description.

Issue (i): Whether mentioning stainless steel rods in the export documents, when the goods were in fact non-stainless steel rods, attracted Section 18(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and the corresponding prohibition under Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: Section 18(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was read as requiring a declaration ensuring the full export value of the goods, the object being conservation of foreign exchange. The description of the goods was treated as relevant only insofar as it affected export value. On the facts, the value declared was higher than the value of the goods actually exported, so the case was one of over-invoicing and not under-invoicing. The Court held that the statutory mischief targeted by the provision was not attracted where the full export value was not understated and no foreign exchange loss could arise. By virtue of Section 67, the deemed restriction under Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 could not be expanded beyond the restriction created by Section 18(1)(a).

Conclusion: The incorrect description did not amount to a violation of Section 18(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, and no prohibition under Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 arose.

Issue (ii): Whether the goods were liable to confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and could be detained from export on the basis of the incorrect description.

Analysis: Confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 depends on a prohibition imposed by or under the Act or any other law. The goods were neither prohibited goods nor dutiable goods, and no valid prohibition was found under the Customs Act or the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. The Court also treated the incorrect description as incapable of creating confiscability where the goods themselves were freely exportable and the declaration did not conceal a lower export value. The reasoning followed the principle that incorrect particulars alone do not justify confiscation when the goods are not prohibited or dutiable.

Conclusion: The goods were not liable to confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, and export could not be withheld on that basis.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was rejected, the customs authorities were directed to permit export of the goods, and the writ petitioner's export entitlement was left unaffected subject to fulfilment of the incentive scheme conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: An incorrect description in export documents does not justify customs prohibition or confiscation where the declared export value is not understated, the goods are freely exportable, and no statutory prohibition under the governing fiscal enactments is attracted.

---